kryptonitemonkey: (Pie)
I have an idea that I want to keep for future writin'. Simply put, I was thinking how we sometimes like the sky to a sea/ocean of stars, and it made me ponder what that would be like, to have it be a literal sea upon which to sail. Liquid sky, stars pouring over the oars, stuff like that.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Suppose that there existed on death row ten brothers, each one a murderer many times over. All the same in guilt, all deserving death for their crimes. Justice having decided that they should die, it is justice for them to do so, yes? Consider then, that on the day before their executions, the governor pardons half of them and grants them life. Is it then fair for the remaining five to die, seeing as their brothers received a merciful reprieve? The answer is yes, for justice is served with their deaths, as it was previously decided. Mercy is not earned, it is a gift, and as we can see in the case of the brothers, it goes over the head of justice. When a person is guilty, justice is served in punishment, and mercy is, in a sense, unfair. Or rather, mercy is not about fairness, but about a gift. It is not unfair for a man to show mercy on one, but not to another, for gifts are not required to be given equally to all.

When throwing a party for a person, we do not give everyone presents of equal worth, rather we lavish one person with much, and we do not consider it to be unfair to everyone else. Instead, we remark on how lucky that person is. And so it is with mercy, and so it is with God. We cannot call God unfair for showing mercy to some, when we all deserve punishment. No, we must instead remark upon their great blessing.

There is a story told of a mother who came before Napoleon, begging that he spare her son, who had deserted the army. Napoleon said that it would not be just, would not be fair, to spare her son, to which she replied that she was not asking for justice, but for mercy. It is foolish argument to say that God is unfair, when it is only by his mercy that he doesn't destroy the whole lot of us.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
I had an idea pop into my head as I was watching The Fifth Element just now (best movie ever, and anyone who says differently is a damn liar). Specifically, when the enemy is destroyed and is now in earth orbit and looks like a second moon. It made me wonder if it implies that earth's moon is itself a previous evil that got spanked. I love those stories where you read through it thinking you're on some foreign planet, some distant world, and in the very end, the reveal is that it really is earth after all. Think Planet of the Apes, but backward, is my thought; where it's the past and the future is the good one, or something. I love the reveal of the uncommon being the common, or vice-versa. I love the idea of there being no moon until the very end, or there being like three of them and somehow two get destroyed. It's the tale of how did we get here, but done in some new imaginative way. I also love the ones where it seems to be a very advanced civilization, perhaps imploding on itself or in someway coming undone, and in the end it turns out to be the far past and we have no idea that it ever existed. One of my most beloved games reveals near the end that history as they know it is not the original one; that at some point in the future, a research lab was sent into the far past, where it engineered the very structure of the continents. And when an accident occurred, all the future people were forced to go out and inhabit this world, becoming in only a few short generations the early cavemen that were to be the progenitors of the entire human race, thus creating one of those terribly fun time paradoxes.

Thinking of all this makes me want to write something similar, though I'm not entirely sure what. I just have this mental picture of a very young earth with three or five moons, or perhaps even ringed with moons, or something, and a very advanced society that can easily be mistaken for the far future. I picture a villain growing extremely powerful and changing the face of everything, in the end leaving the earth more along the lines of what we know now. I'm not sure whether I would want to leave it so that nothing whatsoever remains, or if the stuff somehow over time slags into the clay pots and such that we find now, or even if there are remains to be found, but only much further in the future; say if we're digging to the earth's core and discover it to me artificial, or surrounded by an enormous machine used for power. It's all terribly exciting to think about.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Okay, so random thought: with all the hooking up with one another and with mortals and whatnot, you have to figure that one or more of the greek gods had to have ended up with some sort of STD. Seeing as they are gods, it's likely to be a much more potent and bizarre type than the usual variety. So the question is, what would such a thing look like? And what kind of effects would such a thing have on the mortals they then passed it on to? I do notice that Zeus and a lot of the women he was with ended up in animal form every so often...
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Slashdot linked to a rather interesting article (which itself links to another article, woo), regarding the state of the modern intellect and the effect the internet has had on our cognitive processes. Mostly it's a guy commenting, but he brought up some interesting points, and the conversation threads on Slashdot regarding said article has given me much to think about.

The basic argument a lot of people make is that while our general memorization skills have dramatically dwindled, that's not necessarily a bad thing, because the internet now gives us instant access to most any knowledge we could ever want. In essence, the internet has become the extension to our memory. Thus, the new form of intelligence is not necessarily focus on how much you can recall, but how well you can process and sort knowledge coming in from the internet. I disagree with this argument to an extent, and try to remember every bit of information that I can. However, I do agree that the ability to process is now a highly important skill to basic functioning.

However, there is a very large problem with this whole idea. The problem is that most people are actually using these enormous quantities of information in any sort of intelligent manner. They are not learning even the basic methods of sifting and sorting. If anything, this instant access to knowledge has made people far lazier and more stupid than ever before. It's as if the very possibility of accessing the knowledge is enough for people. I realize I'm generalizing, but it's a generalization based on my observations of many friends. And what I see is a distinct lack of interest in learning, or even finding things out. It's already out there, so they figure it's not important for them to look it up themselves. So not only do people not bother to learn the new skills, they don't even have the same amount of personally learned information that people used to have.

What the net has done is to make people lazy and complacent, and that is a terrible place to be in, especially when our connection is so very tenuous. If you've ever had the net cut out unexpectedly, you know just how much basic information you suddenly lose. You forget how to do even simple things because you can find it all online, so when it's gone, you suddenly find a number of tasks that you can't remember how to do anymore. So what happens if a large group of people suddenly lose this connection? Nothing but empty heads, bumping into each other...
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
You know, I find it amusing that even amongst all of the varied geeky, fannish groups, we all have things from other groups that make us go, "wow, now that's too geeky even for me." But really, the amusing part comes when one sits back and realizes just how geeky one's own pursuits are, and how often those things we find too geeky are really just the same thing, but merely another fandom. I occasionally have moments where I find myself looking at the fanfic or music done for a specific fandom and wondering why anyone could possibly do something like that; then I remember the fics I've written and have to go bury my head in something with the embarrassment of it all. I think that often the only real difference is that I have not (yet) gotten into that particular fandom. We're all just a few good episodes away from joining in. We geeks and such tend to be simply fans of something with a creative spark and a singular focus. Now if only we could get sports people to realize their geekiness...
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Every time I look at my list of people I have friended and been friended by here, I realize just how few of them actually regularly post (yet somehow still remain active; is there no expiration date on ljs?), if at all. It then, inevitably, strikes me that much time has passed since I have spoken with this or that person, for various reasons. It makes me sad, to be sure, but it also makes me think about how easy it is to forget about people. Not just forget about them really, but forget the facts about them. Things they like, things they've told me and I them, their history and such. It's a bizarre feeling when you realize that certain people you were, once, at least minor friends with, have become nearly complete strangers again. As I have only my own mind to work with, I do not know whether this is a common occurrence with most people, or whether this is yet another peculiar quirk of my mind (I swear I have a memory like a sieve some times). I suppose that it does happen to us all to some degree. We return for a school reunion years later and discover we barely remember half the people we used to know. Still...

On an aside, I must say that I am having an on-going struggle with the use of semi-colons. I get the general gist of semi-colon use, but malheureusement (unfortunately), I do not quite have the same inherent, and natural, grasp of them as I have of most other english speech. Either I didn't read enough books with semi-colon usage to have picked up the how-to, or, uh, something. The problem I keep running into is that I very much feel that most of my sentences are not quite complete and need the semi-colon to continue, but I can't very well have nothing but semi-colons bounding about. Tisn't proper. I should get my hands on a copy of Pure Drivel again sometime. There's that one excerpt of Martin's where he uses only a single period in a rather large bit of writing, while still managing to keep the whole thing grammatically correct. Pure genius.


Mar. 7th, 2008 08:20 am
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Is it possible to have a gleeful disdain for something? The words seem rather contradictory, oxymoronic at best. Disdain usually has an aloofness to it that would seem to not go well with being gleeful. I don't know what to think.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Okay, so I get absolutely, furiously annoyed every time John Mayer's song Waiting On the World to Change starts to play. I used to think it was a pretty song, and I guess it still kind of is, but I simply cannot listen to its inane, and utterly retarded lyrics anymore. I don't really have the proper adjectives to describe just how foolish and empty-headed the message is. Does he know nothing of history? How can you not even notice what happened in the sixties, when massive changes occurred because the people would not sit back and wait? Waiting on the world to change? Give me a break. Hardly anything in this world ever gets better by waiting for it. It is the nature of most all systems to degrade without energy or effort put into it. It is as much true of physics as it is of social systems. Most all of the world's best changes have come about as a direct result of some small group of people, with often little power, who stood up and took a stand. How can you not realize that sitting back and waiting only ends with something worse than when you started? We have many examples from our very own history, such as black rights and womens' rights specifically because people, who felt as if they had no power to change things, didn't care and kept on moving until they did change things. Oh John Mayer, how could you know so little. He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
I was reading this article earlier today on how a christian should be blogging, and I have to say, some of the comments and scripture quoted on the matter really hit home for me.

This part in particular struck home and quite made me think )
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
I've been mulling over a question in my head for the past few days and figured I should put it down before it slips away. The question is whether it matters whether a true and good message comes from an evil, bad, or really hypocritical person/source, and more importantly, whether it should matter.

The first part is an easier answer to swallow for most, and the answer is that yes, the source of a message does matter to most everyone. It doesn't matter how important, useful, or critical a message may be, most people tend to mostly to completely reject it if we dislike or distrust the source it comes from, even if the source is only repeating the message. It is often nearly instinctual with us anymore. We don't like the messenger, we ignore the message.

The second part is slightly more difficult, though more because we don't want to follow it. Also, it can sometimes depend on the situation. Anyway, the thing is, as long as the message is truly a good one, and we can verify that it is true, then the source should not matter much. Granted, if a person/source is malevolent, the message can be twisted or be completely misrepresented, so the verification of the message is pivotal. Yet, this too points to the message being important, both for verifying and for listening to if true.

I never really thought much on the subject, but I've been reading through the book of matthew the last few nights, and some of the things Jesus said stuck in my mind. The most memorable was in talking of the pharisees and rabbis. He said very clearly that the people should obey what they said and not follow their examples. The religious leaders were, to some extent anyway, instructing the people in the word of God in what was right, but were themselves hypocrites and white-washed tombs. So basically, Jesus said that when the message or teaching is right, but the teacher is wrong, it is no excuse for us to ignore the message. Food for thought I think.

* 2/17/08
I would now add that the source does indeed matter, for Jesus himself demanded demons into silence and would cast them out of people when they would try to speak the truth, that he was the Christ. But again, I suppose much depends on the situation and the subject matter.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Would you, in general, rather be proved right, or wrong, in your paranoia? On the one hand, to be proved wrong means one can relax and no longer worry, but then one also has to deal with the personal embarrassment of being paranoid. On the other hand, to be proved right means to have the satisfaction of having deduced the truth, but also means that whatever horrible thing one thought of is real. I suppose the question comes down to, which is worse, to be embarrassed, or to be right about something horrible?
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
You know, this whole uproar about illegal immigrants and multiple languages has gotten me thinking on the subject. Honestly, as in most things, I can see both sides of the issue, though I think I may be swaying more one way than the other. I have honestly no opinion about deporting the illegal immigrants, though I think it's not really feasible at this point. However, I do seem to have a thought about the whole language issue. On the one hand, it's almost cruel not to try to help people understand the basic necessities of life. When any of us travels to another country, we expect a certain level of understanding and help. However, when we want to live in another country, we're expected to at least try to learn the language (it does help that english is currently pretty much the common language of the world).

I think it's rather arrogant of anyone to come live in a country and then expect the country to start drastically changing everything to fit you. I definitely think it too arrogant if someone disobeys the law of a given country, sneaks in illegally, and then has the gall to expect the country to change for it. In the case of the U.S., I really don't know how fair our immigration laws are, but they are still laws, and as such, should be honored. I don't think we should flat out say english is the official language, completely removing all spanish language assistance, but I do think it's rather ridiculous that we have to go out of our way for their convenience.

I acknowledge that there is an increasingly larger population of perfectly legal mexicans, but I also know that there's a population of what, several million?, illegal immigrants here as well. I think it's a perfectly rational assumption that when one comes to another country, one tries to learn the language. I don't know though. It just seems to me that something's not right with every option.

What I do know, and this is just my personal feelings on the matter, is that I dislike a group of people moving to where I live and demanding that I accommodate them by learning their language and adding it to everything I do or make. I also don't appreciate the attitude I've gotten on several occasions, the one where basically someone barely knows enough english to carry out my request or order, and then gives the attitude that they don't care and I'm lucky just to get that. Though I suppose that's more dicks being dicks. A dick is a dick in any language.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
So I was flipping channels this afternoon during lunch, when I came across some channel with a sort of semi-documentary trip with Ashley Judd going to Africa to document the widespread terror that is AIDS. VH1 I believe. Anyway, it was rather interesting at times, but there was moment where Ashley Judd was reading this script for a commercial or speech she was going to give about AIDS (she speaks impeccable french btw, which I find unbelievably sexy) that I was rather struck by an annoying bit of irony. The irony being that she was reading/rehearsing the bit that talked about abstinence, about how kids should wait for marriage. This, of course, is not only absolutely true, and if done by everyone, would greatly wipe out, or decrease, the number of AIDS cases in Africa. There was no crap about condoms making it safe, because come on, they really aren't all that safe when it comes to AIDS/HIV.

What I found terribly hypocritical though, was that when people go to, or are in Africa, they realize that abstinence really does matter, and that maybe it's something worth considering. I've heard of various college campuses in Africa where thousands of students show up to pledge abstinence, because they've seen first-hand the devestation that AIDS has caused. The hypocricy lies in that such ideas are completely scoffed at here in the US, and that some of the very celebrities speaking up at its virtues over there, come back here only to make another movie or show involving lots of casual sex, sending the exact opposite message of what they said elsewhere. It's not like we're somehow different here. The number of STD cases percentage-wise in this country is astounding. The number one STD, which affects nearly half of all sexually active people (47% to be precise), can be transmitted simply through contact with the the affected region, and has become the number one cause of cervical cancer. But I digress. I'm just annoyed at the difference in messages and reactions to said messages we get.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
When a conflict becomes evident between an apparent interpretation of the Bible and an apparent finding of science, it is not necessary to force a final determination to be made immediately without further investigation. It is possible that a misinterpretation of either or both of the statements of Scripture or the evidence from science have occurred. Since, of the two, Scripture speaks with greater clarity, until a satisfactory resolution can be made about the conflict, I will proceed with confidence in my interpretation of Scripture. Resolution may not occur in my lifetime.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
I've been thinking, having watched Serenity a few more times (once with french subtitles, ooh la la), and now starting to watch the episodes of Firefly again, I've been thinking on the subject of morality and convictions and such. Having gotten over the dirty old westernishness of the show, I've found myself now more repulsed by the very actions and thoughts of the show. There is something of a nihilistic bent to Firefly. There's always bits of hope within the show, but overall, there's just this theme of moving ever onward with no real hope, joy, or purpose. Granted, many shows are like this in some way, but this show in particular is all about the ability to keep walking forward, in a stubborn effort to sort of stick it to the universe, even God.

I say God in this instance, and even though a belief in God is rather contrary to nihilism, I see this as still the case. I shall elaborate...somewhat. I'm reminded of those oft-quoted words, "methinks the lady doth protest too much." In the case of Mal, he's all about pointless marching ever onward, and it seems to me that he does indeed protest too much in the case of God, as seen by pretty much any time he and Book are ever in the same room together. I'd like to say on an aside that I'm glad that Book was on the show to give the crew something akin to an actual conscious, but it only further proves how often the others are depraved. Anyway, I just get the feeling that Mal is really angry with God, probably for what happened at the battle of serenity, to the extent that he is not just pointlessly marching ever forward just to keep moving, but is trying to keep ahead of whatever it is that God may want from him. He's rejected so much, though his one redeeming value is his love for his family on his ship. Not that that can actually redeem him, but it contains a spark of hope.

Now I've gone off in a direction I didna expect to take, and I didn't really get to the point I was originally aiming for, but I'm tired now, and not really up to getting back on track for the moment.


Nov. 17th, 2005 10:41 pm
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
You know, not counting a few oddities, I think one can really tell a person's current state by the music they like listening to. I guess one could call music an emotional barometer of sorts. Not that this is a terribly surprising idea, more like we just don't think about it much. If you ever see someone go through some major event/change in their life, very often their taste in music can change. My brother, for instance, used to listen to mostly the harder rock type stuff, and his bands became even harder after he had been in the marines a while. Interestingly enough, after he started rock climbing a lot, he mellowed out a little bit and has started listening more to the likes of Phish and Dave Matthews. I've noticed that the songs I listen to are often affected by mood. I don't tend to like the harder rock stuff unless I'm angry or in a head-banging mood. Likewise, I have to be in a calmer mood, or want to be, to listen to classical music and some of the really mellow stuff. Also intriguing is how the music can start to mold our moods and views of things, though this is true of most things. Anything done repetitively starts effecting the brain and perceptions.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
More of a ponderance really, but there it is. Anyway, I've been thinking now and then about tv shows, comedies in particular. With the exception of certain cartoons, like Simpsons and Family Guy, good comedies cannot remain the same. By this, I mean that there must be character growth in the long run for the show to be "good". I'll explain.

I've never been particularly fond of the Seinfeld show. I watched it growing up, but I could only watch it for so long before I started to be very sick of it. I can't really watch it anymore. I never really knew why that was until someone pointed out that beside the fact that none of the characters had any real morals, they never grew as people. I realize that the point of the show was indeed nothing, but that in itself is the very problem. The characters go through situation after situation, yet they never mature, never grow up, never change position in life or learn any lessons. If something never changes in life, then it becomes stagnant. That is the nature of life. Incidentally, that is why I now think that the final episode of the show is quite fitting. It ticked a lot of people off, but it actually makes me think a little less of the show, because finally, though it took years, change took hold of the characters. No way they could come out of such a situation without some kind of maturity that they so desperately lacked.

In the opposite direction, I look at Friends. It had just as many crazy situations, often without a lesson being learned there either, but not always. The characters actually grew as the show progressed. They learned life lessons, they bonded with people. They went through heartbreak, love, and family. Even death in some cases. One can look at episodes from various seasons and see a progression. That's what makes a show good, though some might disagree. There is a bit of taste involved in all such things.

Ironically, no comedy show that has growth and maturation in it can remain quite as funny as it was in the beginning. Or perhaps I should say, it cannot remain humorous in exactly the same ways. In the beginning of a comedic show, it's often just a lot of banter and the occasional slapstick. However, as a show grows through the years, it tends to start maturing in tone. The jokes often become...deeper maybe. They have more impact and more involvement in the lives of the characters. Life tinges humor a bit more darkly.

Anyway, my train of thought has derailed. All for now.
kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
I had a very odd dream last night. I've been playing Warcraft 3 again lately, and I just got to a level where one must survive for 30 minutes, but I didn't get to it until today, so my brain seemed to want to do it in my head as I slept.

I could see the troops lined up in huge rows on all three sides of the field, and many were quickly destroyed, but at some point, something really cool happened that got me to thinking this morning. Anyway, in the dream, I, and all of the many troops, many of them in little groups, began singing in a loud warsong of some sort. It was one of the coolest things I've ever heard. Hundreds of warriors singing in a loud rumble, a moving song that I'm not sure had words or not, but moved me like few songs have. I could feel it bursting deeply from within my throat as we raised our voices in cry. I could feel it reverberating through everything, and the feel was out of this world.

And it made me think, how I would have loved to see that in the centuries past. Thousands of troops all blazing away in some battle song enough to shake the foundations of the earth as they head into battle. A man could easily lose to such a warhost.

Feel the rumble coming through the ground
Feel the marching of our many feet
Sing us all together once around
Destroy the other in crashing beat
Forevermore raise thy voice in cry
Bring the host to its knees and know
Hear the roaring voices in the final death you die
Be once and more defeated in our blasting blow


kryptonitemonkey: (Default)
Kryptonite Monkey

September 2017

34 56789


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 05:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios